313 replies to this topic

[cavman]

Whoa, thats a long way back.

Well he is old

[cavman]

Not to jump on these guys but Brandon posted a few posts but hasn't talked about triangle testing though asked. He seemed to sign up to defend their findings which I understand but be open to things which I doubt their group will be if not agreeing with them. He'll just send out a bottle to someone like Ken who probably brews more in that style than anyone else on here to try. I would like to hear Kens thoughts on that

[Big Nake]

Well that sounds open minded, some of your earlier posts sounded like a bit more maybe hopeful.

You make "hopeful" sound bad.

[Big Nake]

Not to jump on these guys but Brandon posted a few posts but hasn't talked about triangle testing though asked. He seemed to sign up to defend their findings which I understand but be open to things which I doubt their group will be if not agreeing with them. He'll just send out a bottle to someone like Ken who probably brews more in that style than anyone else on here to try. I would like to hear Kens thoughts on that

Thoughts about what? A lack of information? They just brought this information out yesterday and all of these guys have jobs, kids and families. I assume that some amount of information will come out whether it's by them, Marshall or someone else. I'm not sure what is happening in this thread but I have no real affiliation with these guys except that I exchange brewing information with them. I have always been open to trying things that sounded like they would result in better beer. I never assume that my can't get better. Ever. I'm getting a very strange vibe in here from you guys.

For those who see this information and say that it doesn't interest them, I think that's reasonable. For those who say it sounds like too much work, I think that's reasonable too. For those who don't brew a lot of German styles, I would say to ignore it. But for those who see it and don't believe it, I would have to ask why unless you have done a lot of homework on the subject. Denny is the only one who said he had played with some of these ideas and that he didn't see a difference.

[HVB]

Thoughts about what? A lack of information? They just brought this information out yesterday and all of these guys have jobs, kids and families. I assume that some amount of information will come out whether it's by them, Marshall or someone else. I'm not sure what is happening in this thread but I have no real affiliation with these guys except that I exchange brewing information with them. I have always been open to trying things that sounded like they would result in better beer. I never assume that my can't get better. Ever. I'm getting a very strange vibe in here from you guys.

I am not sure the vibe but I see many similar questions on the AHA forum that have been asked here so it is not just this group. Either way, I am sure my 30 minute Helles with an 007 style starter would make them run for the hills 😀.

[Big Nake]

I am not sure the vibe but I see many similar questions on the AHA forum that have been asked here so it is not just this group. Either way, I am sure my 30 minute Helles with an 007 style starter would make them run for the hills .

I expect people to ask questions and I expect people to think about the possible impact of this method and then decide whether they think it's for them or nor. I'm not sure that I would just discount it by default unless I had already been down this road and experimented with it and found it to be a bunch of nonsense. I will admit right now that I am not a scientific brewer. I get as deep into brewing as I need to so that I can solve a problem that I have and that's about it. I don't question things on a scientific level. So I have no reason to dismiss any of this information... it's all new to me.

[cavman]

You make "hopeful" sound bad.

  

Thoughts about what? A lack of information? They just brought this information out yesterday and all of these guys have jobs, kids and families. I assume that some amount of information will come out whether it's by them, Marshall or someone else. I'm not sure what is happening in this thread but I have no real affiliation with these guys except that I exchange brewing information with them. I have always been open to trying things that sounded like they would result in better beer. I never assume that my can't get better. Ever. I'm getting a very strange vibe in here from you guys.For those who see this information and say that it doesn't interest them, I think that's reasonable. For those who say it sounds like too much work, I think that's reasonable too. For those who don't brew a lot of German styles, I would say to ignore it. But for those who see it and don't believe it, I would have to ask why unless you have done a lot of homework on the subject. Denny is the only one who said he had played with some of these ideas and that he didn't see a difference.

It's not bad to be hopeful, you are a bit of a perfectionist which though not a bad thing can lead to grabbing onto something that needs some testing still.
Ken, I bet you brew some amazing beer but I fell you are a worry wart and any new/old thing at times grabs your attention. You have always sounded happy with your beer and now because a small group has said that basically if you don't brew like us you are selling yourself short you actually believe that and not all your years of brewing. I always felt that despite your beers being not my favorites but beers I would enjoy that you had your shit together and I would enjoy drinking your beer. I just think you are jumping on this too quick due to that perfectionist side, some validation never hurts.

[Brauer]

Well he is old

My only qualifications are that I am a biochemist, I am interested in the technical aspects of brewing, and I've been drinking German beer in most corners of (West) Germany for 40 years. I'm not sure if I can add anything that hasn't been said, though.

As a scientist, that paper is the presentation of a hypothesis, perhaps a literature review, but it is impossible to evaluate since there is no data presented to support the hypothesis. Formatting it to look like a scientific paper is a bit misleading. It doubt it would pass peer review, which is almost always required for a scientific paper.

I wonder which DO meter they are using, since they usually have an upper limit of 120°F. I didn't see that noted and your materials and methods have to be identified to evaluate a claim. The fact that this goes against established practices means that there is a higher threshold of evidence required. Science works that way because there is such a large body of evidence that this is not required.

I actually use a lot of the techniques they cite. I don't worry about others. I question worrying about inletting water when the malt itself is full of oxygen, for eample. I'm sure that German breweries try to minimize oxygen, but I doubt they are adding sulfites.

Concerning the short shelf life, German breweries are often fanatical about getting their beer to taps quickly, like IPA brewers in New England, because they feel that beer starts to lose flavor as soon as it is made. Shortening the time to tap is one rational for rapid Lager fermentation schedules. They are also obsessive about tannin, which is my pet hypothesis, along with freshness, for what could be a big part of that subtle, elusive malt character famous in some beers. I suspect that those using the Augustine's yeast have figured out that yeast strain is part of that, too.

But I am not in the camp that believes it takes magic to get that quality. I know there are a lot of mediocre Lagers in the US, but I've had some spectacular ones. Notch Pilsner and von Trapp Helles are great commercial examples that I have been able to have fresh. I think I've made good examples of German styles and Caveman made a Pilsner that I thought could stand with some of the best I have had (I have no idea how many Pilsners I've had in Germany, maybe less than 25, since they aren't as common as Helles and Export).

Sorry to be so long-winded,

[positiveContact]

I've had the von trap Vienna lager and damn is that good beer.  I need to try the helles.

[positiveContact]

I actually use a lot of the techniques they cite. I don't worry about others. I question worrying about inletting water when the malt itself is full of oxygen, for eample. I'm sure that German breweries try to minimize oxygen, but I doubt they are adding sulfites.
 

 

can you define inletting here?

[neddles]

Sorry to be so long-winded,

No worries, always good stuff.

[Big Nake]

Thanks Brauer. So what do you have to say, generally about the concept of keeping O2 low? Do you think that these guys are reaching or do you see any merit to it? Which parts of their process do you follow and feel are important? What I mentioned to Brandon was that some of these pieces are attainable on my system but others are going to be very complicated. As close as I watch water composition, temps and pH, I still have everything pretty "open" to the air including open transfers to secondary and [purged-with-CO2] kegs. But the question is... have they brought something, anything to light that can be done with little-to-no trouble that most brewers are not doing and that would improve beer quality, flavor or shelf life?

[Big Nake]

One other thing about this idea of oxidation... this is not just about German styles as these guys experimented with. We have had some conversations here about getting that great late-hop character in APAs and IPAs (more hops, the 170° whirlpool, more dry hops, etc). They are suggesting that oxidation is responsible for scrubbing out a lot of the late hop character people are trying to keep in the beer. One of the guys in that group made some hoppy ales while trying to keep O2 exposure to a minimum and he said the hop character was phenomenal and long-lasting too.

[positiveContact]

One other thing about this idea of oxidation... this is not just about German styles as these guys experimented with. We have had some conversations here about getting that great late-hop character in APAs and IPAs (more hops, the 170° whirlpool, more dry hops, etc). They are suggesting that oxidation is responsible for scrubbing out a lot of the late hop character people are trying to keep in the beer. One of the guys in that group made some hoppy ales while trying to keep O2 exposure to a minimum and he said the hop character was phenomenal and long-lasting too.

 

I think most people already do the best they can to reduce O2 exposure post fermentation and since you purposely introduce O2 (aeration or O2 stone) prior to fermentation I can't imagine O2 in the mash is doing much to the kettle hops.

 

To be clear, I think almost all of the "new" stuff they are proposing is pre-boil.  most of us don't excessively splash when filling the BK either (I use a hose).  so really it's mostly in the mash and prior where the major changes are.

I suppose performing a low intensity boil could be new for a lot of people.  I know I don't hesitate to let the boil rip most of the time.

[Brauer]

can you define inletting here?

 

In the document they state that you need to gently mix the grain and water, and recommend letting in from the bottom. That could be true, but it seems, to me, that most of the bubbling comes from the air trapped in the grain itself, not the churning. Perhaps the churning allows the oxygen to temporarily dissolve, but I wouldn't expect it to change the exposure that much, since the oxygen should come out.  However, they don't show any data that supports that supposition. I need to spend some time with their citations to see what is supported by previous research.

Thanks Brauer. So what do you have to say, generally about the concept of keeping O2 low? Do you think that these guys are reaching or do you see any merit to it? Which parts of their process do you follow and feel are important? What I mentioned to Brandon was that some of these pieces are attainable on my system but others are going to be very complicated. As close as I watch water composition, temps and pH, I still have everything pretty "open" to the air including open transfers to secondary and [purged-with-CO2] kegs. But the question is... have they brought something, anything to light that can be done with little-to-no trouble that most brewers are not doing and that would improve beer quality, flavor or shelf life?

I'm sure a number of things they discuss increase oxidation, but I can't determine if it is sufficient to matter, since they don't show any of the data. There is a strong possibility that they are just seeing what they would like to see (a big part of my job is data evaluation and interpretation, particularly to remove researcher bias, since everyone wants their experiments to be important. In my case, people can die if bias propagates).

 

However, Bamforth has presented data that extreme HSA will shorten the life of beer. A lot of the things that I do that mimic their process are simply the way my system works and my practice. I tend to overheat my strike water, I have almost no headspace in my tun, I use sodium metabisulfite (not so much, though) (I also like a little sodium in some styles), I use accelerated maturation procedures, I naturally carbonate (which happens to scavenge oxygen), I serve as soon as possible... 

 

German brewers (like modern IPA brewers) also tend to look at beer as something that simply has a short shelf life and should be consumed soon after production. 

[Big Nake]

Years ago someone suggested "inletting" to me. I would heat my mash water and instead of just pouring it into the tun, I would hook up my racking cane and tubing (which calls into question the temperature allowances on the plastic tubing) and quietly transferring the water to the tun with the grain already in there. Basically, less splashing, less oxidation. I didn't realize what the purpose was years ago and I also didn't preboil the water first to drive off O2 and then chill it to mash temps. That's an area that concerns me because it would be really time-consuming. What I'm looking for here is an opportunity for improving beer quality... nothing more. Oxidation probably is an issue on my system. I mentioned before that I splash water all over the place when filling the tun for the mash and sparge, I recirc and run off which must introduce O2. I stir vigorously during the chill once the wort is below 100° and the wort splashes on the way to primary through a strainer. I thought all of these things were GOOD on the cold side and I thought they didn't matter much preboil. So I see an opportunity to at least test this just to see if it improves recipes that I have been making for years.

[HVB]

Years ago someone suggested "inletting" to me. I would heat my mash water and instead of just pouring it into the tun, I would hook up my racking cane and tubing (which calls into question the temperature allowances on the plastic tubing) and quietly transferring the water to the tun with the grain already in there. Basically, less splashing, less oxidation. I didn't realize what the purpose was years ago and I also didn't preboil the water first to drive off O2 and then chill it to mash temps. That's an area that concerns me because it would be really time-consuming. What I'm looking for here is an opportunity for improving beer quality... nothing more. Oxidation probably is an issue on my system. I mentioned before that I splash water all over the place when filling the tun for the mash and sparge, I recirc and run off which must introduce O2. I stir vigorously during the chill once the wort is below 100° and the wort splashes on the way to primary through a strainer. I thought all of these things were GOOD on the cold side and I thought they didn't matter much preboil. So I see an opportunity to at least test this just to see if it improves recipes that I have been making for years.

I wonder if you would be better off starting with the eliminating the open air transfer portion of your process first.  That seems like a quicker fix to me.  If you ferment in carboys you can CO2 rack right to a purged keg.

[neddles]

I wonder if you would be better off starting with the eliminating the open air transfer portion of your process first.  That seems like a quicker fix to me.  If you ferment in carboys you can CO2 rack right to a purged keg.

That's what I was thinking. Get rid of the secondary in a carboy as that's probably the biggest opportunity for O2 problems.

[Big Nake]

That's what I was thinking. Get rid of the secondary in a carboy as that's probably the biggest opportunity for O2 problems.

I've done a few primary-to-keg batches which was more for speed than anything else and I did not pay a lot of attention to whether those batches were better or not. I could certainly do primary-to-keg as a main part of a process switch and maybe incorporate some of the other ideas as well. It sounds like primary-to-keg while primary fermentation is still active is a part of this as well... that activity scrubs out O2.

[HVB]

I've done a few primary-to-keg batches which was more for speed than anything else and I did not pay a lot of attention to whether those batches were better or not. I could certainly do primary-to-keg as a main part of a process switch and maybe incorporate some of the other ideas as well. It sounds like primary-to-keg while primary fermentation is still active is a part of this as well... that activity scrubs out O2.

If the keg was flushed with co2 why would you need to scub o2?  It may be in the paper, I will go back and look.